Your Political Views Reflects Your Moral Views


JojoBag
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's not what I said.  I don't have a problem with the fishing pole idea.  

 

 

I'm not saying we should just open the doors and allow refugees or immigrants to flood in....I do believe in carefully monitoring the process, but I don't like the idea of doing nothing out of fear.  

 

 

Then you are politically unaware.  Every single Republican's position on Syrian refugees is based on fixing their house - even the son of the gynecologist who is an isolationist have conceded this much.  The funny-haired guy even declared that it is going to be a beautiful house, safe and secure from enemies, with the foundation for a robust economy... and they don't even need to go through integration and assimilation with societies they don't know anything about.  They would be able to retain their own culture and traditions and even their own air temperature - A position absent from the Democrat platform as you have seen in the current administration and the Democrat debates... they're too busy arguing over how many refugees to let in to deal with the FACT that they can't "monitor the process".

Edited by pam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

This is what I am referring to:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/17/us/politics/presidential-candidates-on-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

 

 

Edited to add:  Sorry, I'm leaving work in a minute so I'm doing two things at once (and I don't multi task well at all....obviously).  I realize now I didn't understand you analogy clear enough before, but I get it now.  I disagree with the analogy.  Inviting refugees to our country is a very different thing than inviting a person into your home.  Very different, the analogy doesn't work for me.

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you should not say things like - the Republican plan for Syrian refugees is against Church teachings if you don't know anything about it.  There's nothing wrong with NOT letting them in until they figure out how to "monitor the process".

 

That's not out of fear.  That's out of the same belief as YOU posited that they need to monitor the process.  You're more in-line with Republicans than you think.

 

Maybe you need to stop playing politics like it's a football game - you just see the color of their jerseys and automatically assume they must be idiots.

Edited by pam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inviting refugees to our country is a very different thing than inviting a person into your home.  Very different, the analogy doesn't work for me.

How are they different?

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of a brief exchange I had recently in a different thread, in which I stated that I am anti-religion, not anti-the religious. That statement was met with some blowback. How could I not view religious people poorly when I am so strongly against the institutions they revere? Curious that the same sentiment isn't being expressed where politics are concerned.

 

FWIW, I agree with the premise that voting for the "evil" political party does not make the voter evil (the evil party is different in my view, but that's irrelevant for the point I'm making). People vote the way they do for a variety of reasons. Some people put more emphasis on economic issues, some on international relations, and others on social issues. And some people just like candidate A's demeanor more than candidate B's. In this particular race, I'm leaning much more for one Democratic candidate than the other. If the lesser one wins, that person may not get my vote in November (and neither will the GOP candidate). That's right, I may not vote for a presidential candidate this year. I'm actually with TFP on this one, if I don't like any of the candidates, I'm not going to vote for any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of a brief exchange I had recently in a different thread, in which I stated that I am anti-religion, not anti-the religious. That statement was met with some blowback. How could I not view religious people poorly when I am so strongly against the institutions they revere? Curious that the same sentiment isn't being expressed where politics are concerned.

 

FWIW, I agree with the premise that voting for the "evil" political party does not make the voter evil (the evil party is different in my view, but that's irrelevant for the point I'm making). People vote the way they do for a variety of reasons. Some people put more emphasis on economic issues, some on international relations, and others on social issues. And some people just like candidate A's demeanor more than candidate B's. In this particular race, I'm leaning much more for one Democratic candidate than the other. If the lesser one wins, that person may not get my vote in November (and neither will the GOP candidate). That's right, I may not vote for a presidential candidate this year. I'm actually with TFP on this one, if I don't like any of the candidates, I'm not going to vote for any of them.

You and I seem to be opposite. I am not anti any institution – just anti towards the individuals that screwed any particular institution up. I am not anti of republicans or democrats – just the idiots that are messing with the constitution and various rights. And to be sure – I do not see a dime’s worth of difference between the individuals of either party except that democrats seem to say the wrong things and do the wrong things and the republicans seem to say the right things and do the wrong things.

I am convinced that if we really knew what was going on in Washington that we would storm our capital, drag our elected officials into the streets and lynch them.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I seem to be opposite. I am not anti any institution – just anti towards the individuals that screwed any particular institution up. I am not anti of republicans or democrats – just the idiots that are messing with the constitution and various rights. And to be sure – I do not see a dime’s worth of difference between the individuals of either party except that democrats seem to say the wrong things and do the wrong things and the republicans seem to say the right things and do the wrong things.

I am convinced that if we really knew what was going on in Washington that we would storm our capital, drag our elected officials into the streets and lynch them.

 

I actually really like that perspective. I'm still skeptical of institutions as they often have a tendency to corrupt otherwise decent individuals, like a certain Tea Party candidate who was recently revealed to be the recipient of large donations from Goldman Sachs. Politics destroy good people. The system is built that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I just had to go through and do some major deleting of posts and editing of posts.

 

We CAN NOT, let me repeat, CAN NOT mention current political candidates in our discussions.  It's because of our tax exempt status which is stated in the site rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually really like that perspective. I'm still skeptical of institutions as they often have a tendency to corrupt otherwise decent individuals, like a certain Tea Party candidate who was recently revealed to be the recipient of large donations from Goldman Sachs. Politics destroy good people. The system is built that way.

 

Not an expert on political donations....but I don't think the tea party candidate you refer to received an extraordinary donation from GS compared to another candidate from the opposition that received more than 10x the amount donated to TP candidate. The other "scandal" with TP candidate and GS is a non issue....people margin their investment accounts all the time and pay a hefty interest rate in the process. I believe we charge 7% for margin loans. (essentially collateralizing their securities)

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion reminds me of a brief exchange I had recently in a different thread, in which I stated that I am anti-religion, not anti-the religious. That statement was met with some blowback. How could I not view religious people poorly when I am so strongly against the institutions they revere? Curious that the same sentiment isn't being expressed where politics are concerned.

 

 

I'm not at all privy to all your experiences on the matter but from what I have seen on lds.net, I don't think there's a contradiction at all in Vort's views between religious institution and politics.

 

But here's the difference between religious institutions and political institutions - one is God-made, the other is man-made.  Now, for someone who doesn't believe in God, this might be one and the same.  But for us believing folks, the prophets are supposed to be doing God's will, so when you say the institution is evil, this goes for the prophets, at least, and at the priesthood, in general.  Politics is different - the political party evolved from many men and women's contribution to its political platform - so one man's contribution may not be another man's principles but they can still be in the political party for certain reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Maybe you need to stop playing politics like it's a football game - you just see the color of their jerseys and automatically assume they must be idiots.

You must be joking. First of all, most people I know including those in this thread play politics like it's football.

If you think I do that you don't understand me at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most people I know including those in this thread play politics like it's football.

The reason for "playing football" with politics is that the winner takes all. And there is no room for the losers.

Especially in USmerica, the whole government depends on one party rule: it's either the Dems or the GOP. And, even though only about 66,0000,000 "chose" the winner, all 320,000,000 of us are forced to live under his thumb.

It was not always so, as the original Constitution did not recognize political parties.

In Israel, for example, the Knesset chooses the Prime Minister based on the more or less proportional desires of the people. But even there, there are some who are totally unrepresented in the halls of power.

Freedom, that is, a government that is no larger than absolutely necessary, and maybe smaller, is the only way people can escape the imposition of whatever-the-state-wants.

"A tyranny of the majority" is how many people describe democracy, I among them. But a tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.

Freedom is the highest political good.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be joking. First of all, most people I know including those in this thread play politics like it's football.

If you think I do that you don't understand me at all.

 

That they do!  I agree with that.

 

But yes, that statement on refugees and Republicans is a prime example of playing politics like football - you made an assumption based on the fact that it's a Republican stance and not based on knowing what the Republicans are actually saying.

 

By the way, The New York Times treats politics like football too - their jobs depend on which team wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for "playing football" with politics is that the winner takes all. And there is no room for the losers.

Lehi

Originally the founders thought that the Electoral College was to be more of a vetting process; i.e. since at the founding each of the states really were more like actual nations it was assumed that the candidates would be more sectional and that states would end up voting for the candidate from their state. So the original presumption was that the EC would provide 3-4 candidates to the House of Reps who would then choose the President.

 

The founders were pretty wise-they specifically didn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry voting b/c they knew that ever Tom, Dick and Harry wouldn't have the political acumen to understand the issues and be an informed voter. By restricting the voting pool to certain groups that were more likely to have a deep understanding of the issues the "mob" was less likely to be swayed by somebody with good rhetoric. 

 

Given the current situation, I'd much rather see something akin to the European models of coalition governments, etc. than what we now have. As it currently stands, those who don't like either big parties are pretty much disenfranchised as nobody really represents them (and for libertarians there probably at least 3-4 million of them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

That they do! I agree with that.

But yes, that statement on refugees and Republicans is a prime example of playing politics like football - you made an assumption based on the fact that it's a Republican stance and not based on knowing what the Republicans are actually saying.

By the way, The New York Times treats politics like football too - their jobs depend on which team wins.

I mispoke about the Republicans regarding Syria. I still don't like their stance of not wanting to let Syrians in, but I concede they are trying to help in their own way.

However, one error does not sum up who I am politically. Case in point - I was watching the Republican debate....I really want to like...one of those guys that I'm not allowed to name...so I've been paying close attention to him. I'm also watching the Democratic debate, I'm very interested in one of them.

I haven't checked out the third party candidates yet, but I will for sure.

The Syrian issue is close to my heart. Thus my knee jerk reaction about that.

Most importantly I was trying to make a point that there are pros and cons to either party. There is one true church, but there is not one true political party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I think now is the right time to break the Republican/Democrat monopoly.  I think a 3rd Party can now successfully go against those 2 dinosaurs.

   2012 Elections results (all approximate): 

 

Democrats 65 million votes

Republicans 60 million votes

Libertarian 1.2 million 

Green 470,000 

Good luck with your third party.   You have to convince about 59 million voters to vote your way. I have volunteered for various campaigns since I was 18 and am in my mid 30's now. I know a bit about how politics works. If you really want to get things done, work to reform one of the parties. 

Lit was right-this isn't religion, it's politics. If you want to vote third party, go for it. It's your right. Will it do anything legit in politics? No. Will it make you feel more noble than the people who dirty their hands choosing for the lesser of two evils? Yup. 

 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an expert on political donations....but I don't think the tea party candidate you refer to received an extraordinary donation from GS compared to another candidate from the opposition that received more than 10x the amount donated to TP candidate. The other "scandal" with TP candidate and GS is a non issue....people margin their investment accounts all the time and pay a hefty interest rate in the process. I believe we charge 7% for margin loans. (essentially collateralizing their securities)

 

I did mention that there's one Democratic candidate that I will not vote for if nominated, for multiple reasons.

 

If there's one thing I respect about the Tea Party, it's that they take a strong stand against politicians being bought by big banks and corporate interests. The fact that one candidate is a hypocrite in this regard doesn't come as a surprise, just a bit of a disappointment. I fully expect that sort of thing from most politicians (from both parties), but this recent bit of information just cost the Tea Party a lot of credibility and exposed their candidates for exactly what they are, politicians. If I'm a TP Republican, what reason do I now have to trust our TP candidates, knowing that they're taking donations from major banks?

 

And FWIW, I'm far from being an expert on political donations as well.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not at all privy to all your experiences on the matter but from what I have seen on lds.net, I don't think there's a contradiction at all in Vort's views between religious institution and politics.

 

But here's the difference between religious institutions and political institutions - one is God-made, the other is man-made.  Now, for someone who doesn't believe in God, this might be one and the same.  

 

I actually don't think it was Vort who confronted me on the issue. I could be wrong though, I'd have to go back and check.

 

And yes, as a non-believer, I see both institutions as man-made.

 

But for us believing folks, the prophets are supposed to be doing God's will, so when you say the institution is evil, this goes for the prophets, at least, and at the priesthood, in general.  Politics is different - the political party evolved from many men and women's contribution to its political platform - so one man's contribution may not be another man's principles but they can still be in the political party for certain reasons.

 

Look at it from a non-believer's perspective. You believe that the prophets/priesthood of the LDS church are doing God's work. Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus believe that their clergy are doing God's work. Which one of you is right? What objective reason do I have to trust one set of clergy over another? And in instances where religious people in positions of power are using their position to spread hate and closed-mindedness, yes, they are 100% part of the institution that I'm against. I hold people accountable for the things they say and do in God's name, as everyone should, including people of faith. Throughout the course of history, a lot of evil has come from things done and said in the name of religion. That doesn't mean that I think President Monson and the 12 apostles are evil, but I recognize that there are over 10 million people who would be willing to kill and die for the LDS faith if the brethren told them God desired it. That's what I find frightening about religious institutions. But so long as the religious (including the leadership) are practicing their gospel of peace, I have no beef with the followers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary
Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary

And I think you are missing mine. Written communication can cause a lot of misunderstanding. You know that.

How's about you butt out of my discussions with others and then you won't have to worry about us understanding one another.

Link to comment
Guest LiterateParakeet
Posted · Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary to discussion
Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary to discussion

How's about you butt out of my discussions with others and then you won't have to worry about us understanding one another.

Public forum . . .

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary to discussion
Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary to discussion

Public forum . . .

What does that have to do with my inability to raise the slightest interest in whether I understand your point or not?

Link to comment
Guest LiterateParakeet
Posted · Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary to discussion
Hidden by pam, January 19, 2016 - Unneccessary to discussion

What does that have to do with my inability to raise the slightest interest in whether I understand your point or not?

You know what I meant.

Link to comment
Guest MormonGator

Godless-as an atheist (I have great respect for you for that) would you be swayed one way or another if you found out many believers were voting for someone? 

IE-John Doe is running for president. He has a lot of evangelical support. Would that matter to you? 

I ask in ignorance and to raise a discussion. Nothing more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless-as an atheist (I have great respect for you for that) would you be swayed one way or another if you found out many believers were voting for someone?

IE-John Doe is running for president. He has a lot of evangelical support. Would that matter to you?

I ask in ignorance and to raise a discussion. Nothing more.

Simple answer: no, it wouldn't sway my vote. The reason WHY said candidate is appealing to evangelicals would be a subject of interest to me. But I would never assume that a theist-friendly politician is automatically incompatible with my political views (though that frequently tends to be the case).

Interesting fact: Romney was one of my favorite GOP candidates in recent years. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting my vote in the right circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share